The Lieberman sham compromise on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell cedes control of the military from the law-making and law-executing branches of government to the United States military. In effect, this law says open service is legal, but only when the military pleases.

Joe Lieberman, Monday’s progressive hero, has not introduced a repeal of Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell. The legislative language in the much-heralded compromise leaves everything up to our formerly civilian-controlled military and formerly subordinate-to-the-President Secretary of Defense. Sure, there’s a structure for repeal, but there are lots of hoops the military can elect to jump through.

Or not.

This isn’t repeal. This is repeal with a trigger.

And the trigger is in the hand of the President, along with his Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Who do you think holds the whip hand on military matters there?

Section 654 of title 10, United States Code, shall remain in effect until such time that all of the requirements and certifications required by subsection (b) are met. If these requirements and certifications are not met, section 654 of title 10, United States Code, shall remain in effect.

In fact, that clause is entitled "No Immediate Effect on Current Policy." Until the President, the Secretary, and the Chairman complete, certify and accept the idea that the time for open service has arrived. All of these must occur before the policy will change:

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by subsection (f) shall take effect only on the date on which the last of the following occurs:

ARM10802 S.L.C.
(1) The Secretary of Defense has received the report required by the memorandum of the Secretary referred to in subsection (a).
(2) The President transmits to the congressional defense committees a written certification, signed by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stating each of the following:
(A) That the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have considered the recommendations contained in the report and the report’s proposed plan of action.
(B) That the Department of Defense has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to exercise the discretion provided by the amendments made by subsection (f).
(C) That the implementation of necessary policies and regulations pursuant to the discretion provided by the amendments made by sub-section (f) is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.

Note that all the excuses-language previously justifying this homophobic policy are included in the final paragraph: military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention. Not one of which has been a problem for any of our many allies that have implemented open service.

In other words, the legislative branch has ceded its law-making power to the formerly subordinate-to-the-Executive military. Until the military is ready to implement open service, it won’t happen. (And just in case you weren’t completely satisfied with your purchase, there’s a bonus section to ensure that no benefits are provided to anyone possibly affected by any eventual DADT repeal in violation of the Defense of Marriage Act.)

This is a sham — a sop to the Democrats’ left-of-the-left, as you might expect from anything organized by Joe Lieberman.

Thanks for the analysis, Teddy. I’m trying to think of the last time Lieberman was prominently involved with a piece of major legislation that wasn’t a bogosity; then again, this is par for the course for the guy who owes his Senate seat to movement Republicans wanting revenge on Lowell Weicker for doing the right thing WRT Nixon.

I beg to differ, Spencer. This is all about the fall election. If repeal doesn’t happen first and the GOP wins enough seats, the military can – and will – claim that the nation is still divided on the issue and put it off some more.

The fact that this was not done by exec order on Inauguration Day is the real sham here.

My question is, how is this different from Truman desegregating the troops? That was done without Congressional approval as well, and could have been repealed at any time by succeeding Presidents. Practically, of course, once it was done it would never be undone, and everyone knew it. Is there any reason to think this won’t play out the same way?

It looks like all this bill does is remove the legislative imprimatur and just reinstates the status quo of life prior to DADT.

Which puts it back to the way it was when I was on active duty in the USAF in the late ’70s/early ’80s.

I served with Gay and Lesbian folks in those days. Most all of them did their jobs and served quietly and usually only had troubles when they gained a commander that disliked them or was uber-religionist, at which point, they would be discharged “for the good of unit cohesion” or some such crapopla.

Pentagon again showing who runs WashingtonDC this week — automatic war funding demand — er — “request” placed. DADT diddled some more being the Pentagon — that American political edifice that is not voted on or for — is not comfortable with moving DADT into the trash bin of bad politics history.

Looks like Mr. Yes We Can Obama is working hard again to prove he can’t or won’t. See HCR. See Wall Street. See Endless Asian Land Wars. See BP/Gulf Oil Well Disaster. He can’t claim the Junior Bush ” I’m an idiot ” defense either. He is not an idiot. A fraud? Charlatan? Fair inquiries both.

Too bad a few so called Democrats cannot find some political fortitude and denounce Joe Lieberman for the pompous ass he is and cut him loose.

Too bad Barack Obama picked a prick like Joe Lieberman for a BFF.

There is a record being formed here to see and judge.

Actions taken.

Actions avoided.

What it takes to get POTUS Obama to move the ball. For who. When. Where.

Appears so far that for many who voted for BO they are not VIP whos,whens,wheres.

Wow, you have to hand it to the politicians. They do nothing for years and years about DADT or whatever marginal fringe policy that the party pays lip service to, but only “attempt” to do something about it during an election year.

So, now all the anti-DADT advocates need to tow the DNC line and vote for their guy or DADT stands! Wow, what a masterful stroke. Either be our vote slave and vote for our horrible policies and have continue to have some hope of equal rights, or don’t and lose the chance for change for another 20 years.

Bravo. Can’t wait to vote for whatever Green/Libertarian/Constitutionalist 3rd party candidate that makes their way onto the Texas ballots in 2010 and 2012. Sure not voting for the Democrats or Republicans.

Yep, I know the Republicans are going to win and they are going to enact a lot of knee jerk stupid stuff I’m not going to agree with, but look at what great accomplishments my party has had to date. Had a 60 seat majority and still unable to do anything progressive. Look at the torture and continuing wars. No thanks. If I wanted this stuff, I would have voted for a Republican.

If Gates — the top civilian at DOD — has bought in and Mullen — the top military at DOD — has bought in, then how much more buy-in is needed? Do captains and corporals get to veto the Commander in Chief, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

No, it’s not a veto, it’s coalition-building. Lots of command decisions in the military, especially on quotidian stuff, impact low-level units, or leave the burden of day-to-day implementation on them. The Ham/Johnson working group is collecting their perspectives on how implementation of the repeal ought to proceed so it’s least disruptive. The fact is this is a historic adjustment for the military, and those sorts of things proceed more productively when people’s views are solicited.

No, Peterr is exactly right. “People’s views” are already known: Both within the ranks and at the top, there is enough opposition to “justify” the unjust (and unjustifiable) continuance of this blatant discrimination. Gates’ announcement of this “study” is just buying time in hopes that will change. It won’t, and just as Truman recognized that it wouldn’t change as regards people of color, Obama must recognize that it won’t as regards gays and lesbians, and have the chutzpah to act on that reality. Unlike Lieberman.

The military has done this kind of thing before, with Truman’s orders to desegregate the services and with the introduction of women. It’s very odd to be having this discussion right after West Point’s commencement last weekend, at which the top two cadets in the graduating class were both women — something loudly decried just a generation ago.

It’s one thing to plan out an orderly transition, but it’s another thing entirely to enable those who wish to delay, obstruct, and demonize continue to drag things out.

You may think this is simply sausage-making, but I see this as the latest skirmish in a continued fight from the right wing to derail attempts to end DADT. The rightwingers within and outside the military don’t want any changes before the November elections, and are hoping to stir up so much grief against changing DADT that the December recommendations will be to continue to study. If they succeed in that, then they’ll try to do the same until 2012, and get a more conservative president who will refuse to change DADT.

Or, to borrow a military image, the right is fighting with Fabian tactics, and the top military and civilian leaders are allowing them to continue to do so.

Of course, this is a sham. This is the Obama Administration afterall. Obama is just using Lieberman as the vehicle for the policy, much as he did when he used him to kill the public option.

As for Spencer, I do not know what it is about reporting on the Pentagon that results in journalists drinking the koolaid but it’s been happening with Spence for a while. If Mullen and Gates were so behind repeal of DADT, they could have repealed it immediately. DADT has been around since 1993. The Pentagon has contingency plans on everything. It never did them on repeal of DADT? Ask yourselves what would even be needed for implementation of such a repeal? Did Harry Truman sit on his hands like this when he ordered the desegregation of the military? Even if you bought into the fiction, that a commission was needed, Gates could have ordered an immediate moratorium. Afterall as Spencer if it is only a matter of “if” not “when”, why lose good service men and women over a technicality that was going to be eliminated anyway?

However, if your goal is to kick the can past the November elections to a Congress more hostile to repeal, you would be pursuing much the policy we are seeing. And Lieberman is just a great way to scotch reform efforts in the Congress without appearing to do so.

hy lose good service men and women over a technicality that was going to be eliminated anyway?

precisely, Hugh, precisely. since DADTis going to be eliminated shortly, why not allow the military to discuss how best to implement the change beforehand and let the grumblers have their grumbling beforehand.

” Did Harry Truman sit on his hands like this when he ordered the desegregation of the military?”

It’s the “Back to 1992 Act” — otherwise known as the opposite of progress.

It means that by law the President (with consent of JCS head and SecDef) can, if he wants to, let GLBTs serve. Or not. Or make up any kind of rules to keep some but toss out others. Or do nothing and let the ban remain in place perpetually.

But let’s say by some miracle our current Coward-in-Chief hits the trigger sometime before 2012 and GLBTs suddenly are permitted to serve openly.

The next President is free to overturn it all and institute a total purge. They are even free to define (again) identifying as a homosexual or engaging in same-gender sex as a court-martial offense as it was pre-DADT.

I disagree, transparait. If the government acts in a way that we, as voters, don`t agree with, the buck comes back to us. We can`t allow them to wash their hands of these matters, we have to hold them accountable for their decisions and their actions. In fact, I would encourage you to take action yourself, make sure that you don`t let lawmakers off the hook, and tell them to ensure the repeal of DADT:

And maybe we as individuals can`t directly hold them accountable, but that is why we have political organizations such as Democracy for America (I`m a member). An act as simple as making a contribution to a group that has the connections and the ability to pressure politicians in Washington (rather than directly to a politician`s campaign) is a meaningful and effective step towards accountability:

It moves us back to Carter years – when there was no rule or law stopping gays in the military beyond “military rules” that were randomly inforced, to a time before Reagan ordered a ban on gays in the military, to a time before “centrist” Dems wanted to show how defense minded they were by putting the Reagan ban into law and Clinton had to stop them with the “compromise” of don’t ask don’t tell – but this time those military rules will come with a Congressional demand for gays serving openly in the military – a major move forward.

Nice link on Truman. The point is that Truman did act. He publicly took a stand that made desegregation in the armed forces inevitable. Obama could have taken a similar stand. He could have signed an executive order in his first 100 days. Instead we get this himming and hawing, passing it off to a commission, kicking it past the election, leaving most of the details out, etc. If you read the legislation, it denies spousal benefits to domestic partners. The benefit picture is about the only aspect that would need any work. If that’s already taken out, there is zero reason to delay. In fact, it would be a lot easier than the desegregation because gays are already integrated into the forces.

Nowadays whenever you hear talk of a commission it is not about problem solving, like the Gillem committee. It is about ducking responsibility and justifying inaction.

Hugh, you need to review that timeline some more. Truman waited years to sign that EO.
It wasn’t that he immediately took a stand or that it was unaffected by the political process or even that Truman got any immediate result from his Order.

Welcome to FDL

Sign in with Facebook or Google+

OR use your MyFDL username

Toolbox

MyFDL is Firedoglake's community site. Anyone can participate by commenting on posts or joining groups to find other people in your area. Content posted to MyFDL is the opinion of the author alone, and should not be attributed to Firedoglake.